ITC: Apple doesn’t infringe Samsung’s smartphone patents

The International Trade Commission has made an initial ruling that Apple does not infringe any of four Samsung patents. Administrative Law Judge James Gildea issued his determination on Friday that Apple was not liable for any Section 337 violations due to infringement. He further ruled that there is no relevant domestic industry that practices the patented claims—a requirement for the ITC to consider an import ban.

In the ongoing patent dispute between the two smartphone giants, Samsung accused Apple of infringing on two patents that appear to be related to 3G wireless standards, and two that relate to smartphone interfaces. For the ITC to bring sanctions against Apple, it would have to determine that Samsung's patents were valid, that a domestic US market exists where the patented claims are practiced, and that Apple infringed the patented claims.

ALJ Gildea did not comment on the validity of the four patents; the finding of no violation of Section 337 hinges largely on a finding of non-infringement. Even if Apple were found to infringe, however, Gildea ruled that no relevant "domestic industry" exists.

Gildea's ruling today isn't truly final, however. A six-person panel at the ITC will later decide if the ruling stands, or should be reviewed and possibly overturned. Though unlikely, Samsung may be able to convince the panel to overturn the ruling, but it has a better chance of a partial reversal if it can prove that a valid domestic industry uses its patents on appeal.

A federal jury recently ruled that Apple did not infringe similar Samsung patents in a patent infringement lawsuit, while also ruling that Samsung willfully infringed a number of Apple patents and design rights. A judgment in a parallel ITC complaint from Apple against Samsung is expected around October 5.

Promoted Comments

Can we have an explanation of what ``no relevant "domestic industry" exists'' for those 3G patents might mean?

From ITC Trial Lawyers Association:Q: What constitutes a domestic industry?A: In general, Section 337 requires that there be an industry in the United States relating in some manner to the products at issue. The proof required to establish a domestic industry involves an "economic" prong and a "technical" prong. The economic prong can be satisfied by demonstrating that there exists in the United States with respect to the products protected by the intellectual property right being asserted: significant investment in plant and equipment; significant employment of labor or capital; or substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research and development, or licensing. To satisfy the technical prong, a complainant must be practicing the asserted intellectual property right. For example, in a patent-based Section 337 investigation, a complainant must prove that it or its licensee is practicing at least one claim of the asserted patent.

I'm not a lawyer -- but if I understand correctly, a relevant domestic industry would mean that there would need to be a US business that produces competing 3G patents or technology that compete for sales inside of the US. This makes sense from an international trade standpoint because the reasoning behind the laws is to protect domestic companies from unfair foreign competition. Basically, there are no domestic companies that Apple could choose to license from instead of Samsung.

Can we have an explanation of what ``no relevant "domestic industry" exists'' for those 3G patents might mean?

From a non-lawyer who's read a bit on the subject: the International Trade Commission allows fast-track protection for a domestic company whose business is being illegally competed against (by, e.g., patent infringement).

If there's no domestic industry by Samsung, there's no reason to protect one. Samsung's US businesses apparently do NOT include making phones.

Hair-splitting? Perhaps; the point would not be relevant if they sued Apple in Federal court. Then, only the question of infringement (and exhaustion, etc, as TFA says), would matter. The ITC obviously doesn't want stuff thrown at it for which it's not the proper venue.

So... how can they not infringe standards essential patents if they use the standard?

Samsung claimed these patents to be standards-essential. That doesn't mean they are in fact essential to the standard, though, just that Samsung claimed them to be so.

Claiming patents to be "standards essential" is a double edged sword, though. If they are in fact required to implement the standard, then Apple would be infringing if it implemented the standard. On the other hand, Samsung would be required by its agreement with ETSI to participate is setting the standard to license those patents to Apple on FRAND terms.

Essentially what happened with these two 3G-related patents is that Samsung came along and said, "hey, we have these two patents. They are actually essential to 3G, and you use 3G, so you are infringing. Pay us big time!"

Apple's response was, "Well, these patents weren't properly disclosed to the ETSI, but if they are indeed essential to the standard, then you have to offer a FRAND license, which your demands are not. At any rate, we didn't actually need this technology to implement the standard, so we're not infringing anyhowways."

Can we have an explanation of what ``no relevant "domestic industry" exists'' for those 3G patents might mean?

From ITC Trial Lawyers Association:Q: What constitutes a domestic industry?A: In general, Section 337 requires that there be an industry in the United States relating in some manner to the products at issue. The proof required to establish a domestic industry involves an "economic" prong and a "technical" prong. The economic prong can be satisfied by demonstrating that there exists in the United States with respect to the products protected by the intellectual property right being asserted: significant investment in plant and equipment; significant employment of labor or capital; or substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research and development, or licensing. To satisfy the technical prong, a complainant must be practicing the asserted intellectual property right. For example, in a patent-based Section 337 investigation, a complainant must prove that it or its licensee is practicing at least one claim of the asserted patent.

So... how can they not infringe standards essential patents if they use the standard?

Samsung claimed these patents to be standards-essential. That doesn't mean they are in fact essential to the standard, though, just that Samsung claimed them to be so.

Claiming patents to be "standards essential" is a double edged sword, though. If they are in fact required to implement the standard, then Apple would be infringing if it implemented the standard. On the other hand, Samsung would be required by its agreement with ETSI to participate is setting hte standard to license the patents to Apple on FRAND terms.

Essentially what happened with this two 3G-related patents is that Samsung came along and said, "hey, we have these two patents. They are actually essential to 3G, and you use 3G, so you are infringing. Pay us big time!"

Apple's response was, "Well, these patents weren't properly disclosed to the ETSI, but if they are indeed essential to the standard, then you have to offer a FRAND license, which your demands are not. At any rate, we didn't actually need this technology to implement the standard, so we're not infringing anyhowways."

So in essence it's the legalese version of 'The Three Stooges' style of logic? A veritable "Ditcher, Quick, and Hyde" vs. "Dewey, Cheatem & How" courtroom showdown?

I think this ruling is dangerous... these domestic rules create quite a harbor in the US for companies that want to use others IP that have no domestic industry... It would appear that this statement would not have been made if there was no violation - it would appear to me that there could be a violation, but the judge is ruing that samsung has no domestic industry here for that patent...

I understand the ruling, but I do not really agree with it... Samsung has quite a bit of domestic industry here, just not for this patent - yet they can not defend their IP for something that is not manufactured in the US...

"A federal jury recently ruled..."....as a rule, juries do not "rule" on anything... You might say they "find", possibly, I suppose. At any rate, it could well be years before either Apple or Samsung receives anything "final" from this impulsive hodgepodge of lawsuits the two companies have hurled at each other. In the absence of any meaningful product bans for either company coming as a result of these suits, it is very doubtful either company will receive anything worthwhile from them.

What do you do with a lawyer in captivity (ie, an employed lawyer)? Do you "feed" it? Is that the right word? If so, then the only entities likely to enjoy a worthwhile "feeding" from these suits are the lawyers who get paid. Most likely neither company will have much to show for all of this enormous waste of investor funds. Apple is particularly to blame for all of the non-productivity this activity has created inside both companies. Unless it'd found that Samsung or HTC had been out paying other companies not to buy Apple components or products, Apple should have stuck to to the drawing room for competition and left the court room alone.

I think this ruling is dangerous... these domestic rules create quite a harbor in the US for companies that want to use others IP that have no domestic industry... It would appear that this statement would not have been made if there was no violation - it would appear to me that there could be a violation, but the judge is ruing that samsung has no domestic industry here for that patent...

I understand the ruling, but I do not really agree with it... Samsung has quite a bit of domestic industry here, just not for this patent - yet they can not defend their IP for something that is not manufactured in the US...

"If there's no domestic industry by Samsung, there's no reason to protect one. Samsung's US businesses apparently do NOT include making phones."

If that is the case, then by those rules, neither does Apple. Samsung could not infringe because Apple had no relevant domestic industry either, since we all know and they proved in the trial, that iPhones are all made in overseas sweat shops. Apple doesn't make phones or 3g technology here either.

I think this ruling is dangerous... these domestic rules create quite a harbor in the US for companies that want to use others IP that have no domestic industry... It would appear that this statement would not have been made if there was no violation - it would appear to me that there could be a violation, but the judge is ruing that samsung has no domestic industry here for that patent...

I understand the ruling, but I do not really agree with it... Samsung has quite a bit of domestic industry here, just not for this patent - yet they can not defend their IP for something that is not manufactured in the US...

You have not, in fact, understood the ruling.

The main thing you are missing is that they have other venues for defending their patents. The "domestic industry" ruling only means Samsung cannot use trade rules to block Apple's imports. They, instead, have to actually use the patent-litigation system to enforce the patents.

I think this ruling is dangerous... these domestic rules create quite a harbor in the US for companies that want to use others IP that have no domestic industry... It would appear that this statement would not have been made if there was no violation - it would appear to me that there could be a violation, but the judge is ruing that samsung has no domestic industry here for that patent...

I understand the ruling, but I do not really agree with it... Samsung has quite a bit of domestic industry here, just not for this patent - yet they can not defend their IP for something that is not manufactured in the US...

You have not, in fact, understood the ruling.

The main thing you are missing is that they have other venues for defending their patents. The "domestic industry" ruling only means Samsung cannot use trade rules to block Apple's imports. They, instead, have to actually use the patent-litigation system to enforce the patents.

Ohh I understand it... If Apple did not infringe then the judge should have simply stated that... The fact that he even mentioned domestic industry means that it does not matter the ruling either way... Samsung will have to use patent litigation - and even then even if they win, they have already lost because in fact there is no way to ban the product from import...

"If there's no domestic industry by Samsung, there's no reason to protect one. Samsung's US businesses apparently do NOT include making phones."

If that is the case, then by those rules, neither does Apple. Samsung could not infringe because Apple had no relevant domestic industry either, since we all know and they proved in the trial, that iPhones are all made in overseas sweat shops. Apple doesn't make phones or 3g technology here either.

The idea is that the ITC can't ban a product due to the domestic industry rules. Standard litigation through a federal court is allowed, which is precisely what Apple did when they sued and won against Samsung.

Ohh I understand it... If Apple did not infringe then the judge should have simply stated that... The fact that he even mentioned domestic industry means that it does not matter the ruling either way... Samsung will have to use patent litigation - and even then even if they win, they have already lost because in fact there is no way to ban the product from import...

Ohh I understand it... If Apple did not infringe then the judge should have simply stated that... The fact that he even mentioned domestic industry means that it does not matter the ruling either way... Samsung will have to use patent litigation - and even then even if they win, they have already lost because in fact there is no way to ban the product from import...

The courts are perfectly capable of issuing bans. The ITC is not the only organization that can do so.

Who is advising Samsung and Motorola to sue over standards-essential patents?It is idiotic, they will never win anything that way.

Think about it: Either Samsung and Googlerola will be slapped down hard for trying to destroy the international standards setting process and end up worse off than if they had never filed suit, or they will win a suit and actually destroy the international standards setting process. (Who's going to bother with international standards, if you can't be sure that some patent troll isn't going to jump out of the closet saying "gotcha!" after you implement an international standard?).

Government and industry simply won't allow the second outcome, so the first is foreordained. Samsung and Googlerola will never win by suing over standards essential patents.

Who is advising Samsung and Motorola to sue over standards-essential patents?It is idiotic, they will never win anything that way.

Think about it: Either Samsung and Googlerola will be slapped down hard for trying to destroy the international standards setting process and end up worse off than if they had never filed suit, or they will win a suit and actually destroy the international standards setting process. (Who's going to bother with international standards, if you can't be sure that some patent troll isn't going to jump out of the closet saying "gotcha!" after you implement an international standard?).

Government and industry simply won't allow the second outcome, so the first is foreordained. Samsung and Googlerola will never win by suing over standards essential patents.

Why not? They did for decades. FRAND only ensures somoene can license the technology, not that they can license it cheaply. If Apple is knowingly and willfully violating the patents, which I'm sure they are, and refusing to pay, then they're stealing the technology and until they pay they need to be injoined. No one seems willing to do that, however.

Why not? They did for decades. FRAND only ensures somoene can license the technology, not that they can license it cheaply. If Apple is knowingly and willfully violating the patents, which I'm sure they are, and refusing to pay, then they're stealing the technology and until they pay they need to be injoined. No one seems willing to do that, however.

Why not? They did for decades. FRAND only ensures somoene can license the technology, not that they can license it cheaply. If Apple is knowingly and willfully violating the patents, which I'm sure they are, and refusing to pay, then they're stealing the technology and until they pay they need to be injoined. No one seems willing to do that, however.

You're forgetting the "FR" part of FRAND.

The F is for Fair, not for Free, which is what how Apple is abusing it right now.

If Samsung is asking way more than they are asking anyone else, as recent court evidence suggests, the they are being neither fair nor non-discriminatory. Apple hasn't refused to take a license, the have refused to take a non-FRAND license.